I bring it up because I'm not really sure if my stance should be quite as zero tolerance as it should be. Wander mentally with me a bit now, and maybe we can figure out something reasonable.

The essential subject is friendship, or in a wider scope simply relationships in general. It's also about loyalty and honesty and fairness -- about doing the right thing versus the wrong thing, and such. So ... okay, it goes this way: Say that there are two people who are really old/close/both friends. Essentially, these two are like -- you know, pb+j, starsky and hutch, diamonds and pearls -- you know, you can't have one without the other. And it's clear that both people really do seem to be more than content with one another and the status quo of their relationship.

Best friends, essentially. Know one another intimately, help one another infallibly, trust, confide in, console and cheer up one another. So really, there's very few things in the world that are perfect, but the friendship between you two just might be one.

Aha. Except. What If... what if all was not really quite as peachy keen as it seemed in friendshipville, hm? What if our buddies are not quite as completely honest in some respect, or as completely understanding in another ... maybe even not as completely happy and fulfilled, or satisfied with the relationship, as it outwardly appears?

Happens all the time, right? I mean, with opposite-sex best friends? Clearly they both love one another. What isn't clear is that in one's perception they are truly Very Special Friends, while in another's they're Soul Mates. And that's where it gets tricky, you see. Because that's where, torturous at times as it may be, for the "friend" to remain platonic, ultimately he/she will be okay with it -- because this really is True Love, and it's not really even about the physical. It's not about sex.

And it really isn't, which is why it's a problem. If it were about sex, the person who's fallen deeply in friendship might well not have done so ... as, clearly, it would seem a relationship inevitably destined to be imbalanced or unhappy. Unless.

Ah, Unless. Unless, that is, that this second "friend" really isn't just a friend, only he/she hasn't realized it yet. Oh, his/her love for the other is as equal and eternal and unique -- they just maybe haven't opened themselves up completely to the ultimate truth of it: there is no more pure love possible for either of you than this you've already found.

Alrighty then. So if you're with me so far, allow me to explain what my original opinion was. In a nutshell, I felt quite strongly that a relationship such as this could not possibly be called a friendship, if it's essential nature is revealed. No, it may not be that the "offender" intended any harm at all, consciously or otherwise. Nonetheless, it's been my opinion that such a relationship is unavoidably damaging to the "victim" side of things (the one who's "in love").

Why inevitably damaging, you may wonder? Particularly when I've already stated that both people are ecstactic and happy with one another, if but for this one little glitch in mutual perception. Obviously both people benefit, yes? Well, yes and no. Mostly no, has been my opinion.

While outwardly, and even to their own initial perception, both people benefit. They enjoy one another, amuse, teach, comfort, whatever whatever one another ... you know, all that best friend crap. So how can that be bad? Well, because this is a give and take that is unfortunately based on bad faith. It is even based, to some degree, on dishonesty.

Consider, for a moment, the expectations and considerations, responsibilities and every other unique thing that distinguishes your One True Love from everyone else. So you'll give your all in every way to them, and you'll get their all back, right? Or something like that, in a romantically fictional world.

On the other hand. Consider for a moment the expectation and considerations, responsibilities and everything that distinguish your One True Partner from everyone else. And by Partner, we're talking Spock to Kirk, Frodo to Sam, Xena to Gabrielle ... you know, Robin to Batman, Thelma to Louise. You get the drift. This is your Partner In Crime. Through thick and thin. You'll give your all and you'll get their all back, in a perfect friendship world, right? Really, almost kinda like a marriage.

Right. Except not. And therein lies the problem. As much as Kirk and Spock, Frodo and Sam, Xena and Gabby and the rest may seem like deeply in love married couples, they are in fact platonically committed partners. (Okay, okay ... for anyone who watched, yes Xena and Gabrielle were lovers subtext. That was obvious. In subtext. But for that matter, Kirk and Spock and most of those other all seem really fond of one another too...)

So the problem becomes -- yeah, say your lives are pretty much lived in a PG-13 movie sort of a way -- you know, nothing more racy allowed than would be broadcast on primetime network tv. And yeah, I meant primetime network tv from, like, ten or fifteen years ago. But you get my point. Obviously, when Bond and his slinky seductive partner/conspirator retire to the bedroom, we're not really meant to think they just slept. But if you're a sufficiently wide-eyed and innocent youngster, the exact details of what they would do would remain a bit sketchy to you.

Which is to say, it very well may not be sex. I mean, it doesn't have to be, right? I mean, if the point is about these two being soulmates, not just two people who shack up?

And see, this is where, for me, this all begins to get silly. (I know. Begin to get. Haha. Shuddup, you.) Because the basic reasoning of my objection to such a relationship is that one person is being fundamentally shortchanged the entire time, whether they realize it or care or not. If the person who isn't in love knows the other person is in love with them, and is truly their friend -- what else should you do but whatever you could to see that they got over you, and at least moved on enough to open themselves to the possibility of meeting someone who could love them the same way?

Because really, if the one who isn't in love with the "friend" does fall in love with someone else... then what? Yes, the commitment to the Partner rivals that of the Love. Except, you sleep with and one you do not. Mostly.

Say that both people actually remain single their whole lives. Wasn't one of them still kind of cheated anyway? Presumably, the one who is not in love pursues it in whatever fashion or frequency that suits them. For the one in love, pretty much what you have is what you're gonna get. And yeah, maybe you'll say that you really still don't think it could be made any better. But you say that while other actually get to be physically intimate with the one they're in love with. What do you get, at best? A brief massage that ends "before it gets too weird"?

Ah, me. Of course myself, I've also seen the variation of this where the best friends are same sex, only one is closeted and the other straight. Honestly, for me it's in these relationships that the imbalance seems most laid bare: the entire relationship is built on a misunderstanding. Both people are perfectly certain they know what's going on, and both are probably 98.99% correct about what's going on. It's that last 1.01% that's the bitch.

So what d'yall think? Are such relationships innately evil? Or what?